About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 6
CNNW 5
CSPAN2 4
CNBC 3
CSPAN 2
FBC 2
CNN 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
MSNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 36
Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36 (some duplicates have been removed)
deficits for as far as the eye can see. washington has got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> you did speak with the president earlier this week. can you characterize that call? did he have any kind of count offer and we understand that he is making clear that it's got to be increase rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit? >> the phone call was pleasant but was more of the same. the conversations that the staff had yesterday were more of the same. it's time for the president if he's serious to come back to was a count offer. >> the jobs record indicated unemployment is down roughly a full point from this time last year. [inaudible] [inaudible] why take such a risk when the job numbers are improving. >> because increasing tax rates will hit many small businesses that produce 60 to 70%
campaigned for re-election on the idea of a, quote, balanced approach, end quote, to deficit reduction, a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them. >> i can tell you what i presented. it will be helpful. >> chris: let me -- >> it is our plan, let me do it. let me explain it. >> chris: i'd like to ask you about this part of it and you can tell me. >> okay. >> chris: $1.6 trillion in tax increases. more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending, next year, and, unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance. >> it is, let me explain what is in the explain they didn't report to you and explain, to people, which is, we propose alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts we agreed with republicans, last year, on defense and a range of other government programs, proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings, to our health care and other government programs, that is $600 billion. in fact, the health care savings in that plan, are larger than the plans we have seen republicans in the
to the labour party. they want to be in government and they claim they want to cut the deficit. what would they cut? what would they cut? if they object to the local government settlement and the object to the defense settlement and the objective the nhs budget and the object to the education budget, even though nhs schools are going up, and what exactly would they do? the problem is as was evident from the shadow chancellor's response, they didn't have anything to say on these matters but if they had a credible deficit plan then we would listen to the questions they ask us about the priorities of those plans. >> john stephenson. >> this cools and colleges of 270 million are extremely welcome. schools and colleges such as those in my constituency plans on the runway ready to take off, just in a little additional financial support. will the chancellor help those colleges and schools? >> i'm very happy to look personally at the case my honorable friend makes for his local education facility. these are of course other government departments but we have provided the money for education, for ne
, to deficit reduction. a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them this week. >> i can tell you what i presented if it would be helpful. >> let me ask you. >> but it's our plan. why don't you let me do t why don't you let me explain it. >> well, i would like to ask you about this part of it and then anything i leave out you can tell me. 1.$6 trillion in tax increases, more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending next year, and an unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance? >> it is. let me explain what is in this plan that they didn't report to you and they didn't explain to people, which is we have proposed alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts, we agreed with republicans last year on defense and other range ever programs, we proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings to our healthcare and medicare programs. that's $600 billion. in fact, the healthcare savings in that plan are larger than the plans we've seen republicans in the past. >> is that what was in the budget?
the kinds of revenue from the wealthiest americans to help the economy grow and achieve deficit reduction and this puts us on a path towards a better economy. >> [inaudible question] what will he do at this moment? >> i would simply redirect that question to the republican leaders, who to this day, have not put forward any proposal on how they would achieve revenues and address the issue on the top 2%. there is no other way to do it, there is no other mathematically sound way to do it. making vague promises about achieving revenue through capping deductions were closing loopholes, it simply doesn't add up to a serious proposal. we haven't heard which deductions they would cap or which loopholes they were close. what is true is that other proposals that have been put forward include attempts to raise revenue only through closing loopholes and limited deductions can only achieve this if the middle class gets stuck with the bill. or if you have a proposal that is wildly limply unfeasible because it suggests that we would wipe out charitable deductions. it is simply impossible and getting som
it in building a good, solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings towards the deficit. we did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our nation's infrastructure. and we did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex defense authorization bill that will keep our nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. it will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our nation today. that is why i'm deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some members of the majority regarding the rules of the senate. they propose to change the nearly 100-year-old senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the senate. our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. that's the issue here. the issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 senators could change the rules to suit their own convenienc
of payments deficit remains petroleum, and to increase our g.d.p. by the maximization of these activities in the united states rather than exporting our dollars abroad. so thank you very much and i think we can sit down now or -- yeah. >> thank you. give us a moment to take our seats. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, our panel discussion is about to begin, featuring senator lamar alexander, senator roy blunt, and our moderator, christine romans. >> can you hear me now? there we go. good morning, rn. -- all right. so i'm a lazy moderator. i've warned everyone. we want to get the ball rolling and talk about this report, talk about the future of energy in this country, and the future of transportation and america's national security with regards to energy. but i want to make sure that all of you know to please jump in. i don't want to ask a question and then ask another question. i want this to be a discussion, and i'll steer it. everyone agree? do we all agree? wonderful. let me start first with fred. nice to see you again. >> good to see you. >> you've heard the findings of the report,
but used that money for deficit reduction because he believed that would control the economy. president clinton did listen to him. and i'll tell you, i talked to bob rubin about that anecdote where clinton says you tell me a bunch of bond traders control the economy -- i'm paraphrasing -- and rubin said, yes, i am. i asked him about that once a couple years ago, and he said it was true. it wasn't as dramatic woodward made it out to be, but it did has happen. but you didn't get that out of geithner. you kind of don't think you'll get that out of lew. he's very much aligned intellectually with president obama particularly on the notion of fairnesses. you know, you talk to economistses. should we really be raising taxes now? no. hour hour tax increases, we're going to lose the deductions -- >> probably shouldn't be cutting that much. the economy is like in a very weird state right now, kind of like i think the notion is to grow it now, you know? and, you know, this guy doesn't see that. he sees raising taxes not as an economic efficiency so to speak, but as you know, you don't get a lot of
with a balanced approach. deficit reduction. >> after the president's remarks, i spoke with his main man on the fiscal cliff, treasury secretary tim geithner. >> let me ask you, the reaction to your going up on the hill and saying this is basically the white house position has been -- mitch mcconnell saying i think it was just demeaning for them to ask the treasury secretary to come up here and give a proposal like this and by this we have people saying it's a sham, it's -- you know, ridiculous, it's a nonstarter. when you went up there, you didn't think republicans were going to go "good idea." >> you know, what we're trying to do is get these guys to come together and reach an agreement that's going to be good for the country and good for the economy. >> by these guys you mean you all and the republicans. >> and democrats together. >> and the white house. >> that's what we're trying to do. what we did was put forward a very comprehensive, very carefully designed mix of savings and tax reforms to help us put us back on the path to stabilizing our debt and fixing our debt and living with
for the american people that extends tax cuts to the american people. brings our long-term deficits down. tough spending savings is part of that, and invest in things that matter to the american economy, like infrastructure, and getting americans back to work. we think we can do that. we have a good chance, and it's very important. and i think we'll get there, david. >> do you think we'll get a deal by the end of the year? >> i do. because the only thing standing in the way of that is a refusal by republicans to accept that rates have to go up on the wealthiest americans. and i don't really see them doing that. >> the idea that they have signalled something significant for them, which is -- >> what is that? >> putting revenue on the table. >> it's welcome that they are recognizing that revenues are going to have to go up. but they haven't told us anything about how far rates should go up, how far revenues should go up, who should pay higher taxes. >> republicans have said that no republicans will vote for a tax rate increase. do you think they are just bluffing? >> i can't tell you what they ar
deficit and debt. so this, this legislation both accomplishes that goal and still provides an increase in diversity which is what the senator from new york was talking about. and then an additional point is the point that the senator from texas so very clearly made. this legislation passed the house. last time i checked, legislation has to pass the senate and the house. that's a pretty important distinction. going back to the comments of the senator from kentucky. he said hey, if we can't do it all at once because of disagreements, let's start getting done what we can get done. so here is a bill that provides us with -- with people who can help our economy grow, people in the sciences and technology fields that we very much need. it will increase diversity just as the senator from new york said, and it's passed the house. common sense says let's go. let's pass the bill. so we very much want to join with the senator from new york and the senator from delaware and the other sponsors that he referred to, but let's join on something that can actually get done, meaning a bill that passes th
benefits to help reduce the other deficits. >> to be clear that's one thing that's clearly off the table. social security is off the tables in these negotiations. >> in a separate process to strengthen social security not as a process to reduce the deficit. >>> on the issues of taxes, is there any flexibility on the president's position? does it have to go all the way back to the tax rates on the wealthy to the clinton levels? >> again, george, we think the best way to do this is to have those tax rates go back to where and one of the best, at one of the most prosperous times in recent american history to combine that reforms that limit reductions for 2%, i'm deeply skeptical about ways to get through this without that mix of rates and reforms. >> and if congress doesn't agree, you're comfortable going over that cliff on january 1st? >> there's no reason why 98% of americans have to see their taxes go up because some members of congress on the republican side want to block tax rate increase for 2% of the wealthy americans. remember, those tax cuts cost a trillion dollars over ten years.
, but not as part of the process to reduce the deficit the country faces. >> there's a notion some republicans are for lack of a better word salivating at a possible it divide where you have some democrats who want no movement on entitlements and if there's any heat to be taken, it to come from the gop or go to the gop. >> let me just say a couple of things. first of all, what geithner was referring to is that social security shouldn't be on the table right now because it's not a driver of the deficit we're dealing with right now. he's referring to a separate process next year. what the republicans have asked for previously and i hope they're not going to continue to ask for is essentially the dismantling of medicare. we debated it during the presidential with paul ryan's proposal to put -- turn medicare into a voucher system. so when it comes to looking for savings in medicare, there's ways to find savings without breaking the guarantee that we've had to our seniors for the last several decades. i think democrats, again, have demonstrated repeatedly that we're willing to compromise, but the r
social security is not connected to the deficit. a separate program, funded separately in the own trust fund. that needs to be dealt with separately. with regard to medicare and medicaid, those programs are floating on the overall inflation rate in healthcare. what we need to do, this is a major part of the affordable healthcare act was to bend the cost curve to bridge down the inflation rate in healthcare. in fact, in the last two year years, the inflation rate in medicare has been remarkably low. much to the surprise of everybody. some in the two or 3% range. that is incredible. part of that is due to the affordable healthcare act. undoubtedly to others. with regard to the doctor payments, that is an annual problem here in washington. started back in the early 2000s. continued to be an annual problem. called the doctor fix. i guess for budgeting reasons, way back when they decided that they would only fund that increase in doctor payments for one year. then every year it comes up. every year it grows because of the general inflation in healthcare. it needs to be fixed permanently as p
. >> do you briyou believe if you rote deficit -- two different ways. you either keep the government that you have and pay for it by raising taxes, or you kind of leave taxes where they are and you shrink government down to where it pays for it. does it matter for the future and for growth which way you do it in your view? >> it does. if you put it all into like a tightening, so how much tightening occurs in the economy that would slow the economy, it's far better to actually reduce government spending than it is to actually raise taxes. >> although that hurts the economy, too. >> everything hurts the economy. so it's a question of which is most -- or least harmful and that tends to be cutting government spending. >> but i do think it's -- >> although tim geithner would disagree with me. >> one side wants to keep the government and entitlements like we have it. and the other side wants to take away all the excess government -- >> i think both sides agree that you need to do both. just a question of how much. >> we need to do both to do a deal. i don't think both sides dwre that it's
for raising revenues, cutting spending and reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years. he said the ball is in the g.o.p.'s court. >> you have heard them for the first time i think in two decades they are willing to have revenues go up to make a balanced plan but they have to tell you what they want do on rates and revenues. >> he says there is no plan to an agreement unless they acknowledge tax rates have to go up for the wealthiest americans. >> heather: thank you very much. with less than one month to reach a deal there is new urgency to reach a deal. coming up our political panel will debate the zik go points. >> brand-new reaction today from the potential nominee of u.n. ambassador susan rice to be the next secretary of state. a senator reiterating concerns about statements she made following the benghazi attack that left four americans dead. in the meantime, clare mccaskill came to the ambassador's defense. >> she had reviewed the dpeor foer going. >> on sunday shows and went well beyond the talking points, we have decimated al-qaeda, that was nowhere on the talking points
. we need to get serious about our deficit and debt that are burying our children's future. [ man ] ring ring... progresso this reduced sodium soup says it mahelp lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just he to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. martha: we have brand-new details on the deadly bus crash that happened in florida. police say the bus driver was confused and lost when he chose the wrong route coming out of miami airport. the top of the bus crumpled after the crash and killed two passengers. it had 32 jehovah's church members on board, they were heading to a conference. bill: if you wash watching "fox news sunday" john boehner described his reaction when the president presented its plan for the fiscal cliff. > >> i said you can't be serious. we have 7 weeks went election and the end of the year and three those weeks have been wasted. bill: flabbergasted, rich. wasting time. three weeks
anything on entitlements, would prefer frankly not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. if you look at the numbers, then medicare in particular, will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program, no matter how much taxes go up. i mean it's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. >> that was president obama in the summer of 2011 speaking the hard truths about entitlements. it did not exactly play well for him then and he's been largely quiet on the issue since, perhaps because for both parties talk of cutting social security and medicare hurts a lot. >> there's a pain point that democrats have to reach as well. it's not just republicans. that both sides have to be able to get to the end of this things and say, yes, the president won re-election but there is nobody that gets away with this thing without feeling pain. >> and there are some on the left who hope to get through this without having to go under the knife. adam green, co-founder of the progressive change campaign says -- yesterday on abc's "this week" congressman keith el
know, one thing is we take a huge bite out of the deficit. we do it in a crude may, and there would be immediate attempts to fix it and fine-tune it and take some back. some would probably get through. if you actually want to look at it from a policy standpoint, it may not be the worst possible option to just go over the cliff and then put back in the tax cuts and the spending increases or renewals that you'd like to put back in. so, you know, worst things could happen. >> well, listen, alan simpson and i go back to his sound from the "today" show, eugene. he said anyone talking about it in that way, there's stupidity involved. he didn't say, eugene, you better not because you're my buddy, but the reality is even our first read team says this notion or all of this media hype about going off the cliff from some of our colleagues is overstated. to their point a deal is in sight, that's why boehner and the president spoke yesterday. it's a matter of how big. will they separate the tax cuts from a larger needed plan later down the road? i guess what you folks in d.c. like to call "kicki
are in a deficit situation, as people have been discussing the past several weeks so there are potential in congress for the house and senate members. >> eric: billions of dollars. of taxpayers money that goes to the u.n. ambassador bolton, thank you for your insight. >> guest: thank you, eric. >> jamie: a fox news extreme weather alert. flood in effect for the west coast. yet another storm is approaching. folks are preparing for worst. severe weather threatening to bring more rain to an area that is already been drenched. chief meteorologist rick reichmuth live from the fox news extreme weather center. if you know rick is hanging out, it must be serious. how bad? >> really bad. this is the second batch of storms they have had this month. earlier in month, a lot of areas saw ten plus inchs of rain. now we have had another series of storms last week where we have seen ten plus inches of rain. the ground is saturated. this storm is windy. windy conditions across colorado, spreading across the intermountain west. the ground is saturated, if you take that wind and we will see more trees goin
-term deficits and we should do ethics help growth in the short term like rebuilding american infrastructure, helping americans with their mortgages, extend unemployment benefits. we show a way to pay for those in our plan in that context. that's what we think makes the most sense. of course, we're open to suggestions. there are going to be other ideas from democrats, other ideas from republicans. we can take a look at those ideas and evaluate them but not until we see them. >> schieffer: bottom line, though, is you're going to-- you're going to have to have more revenue and you expect to get it from upper income americans. you think they ought to pay more. >> we're going to have higher rate and higher revenue interest just 2% of americans. in any event% of americans do not need to see and are not going to see an increase in their marginal tax rates. that's a commitment of president. i think we're going to get there. the republicans have conceded-- and this is important-- they're prepared to raise revenue, raise taxes as part the deser deal but they haven't told us how far they're willing to
is a deficit hawk. liberal, but he is a deficit hawk. he doesn't say maybe if we can't get a deal together, maybe we'd be okay with the fiscal cliff. he says that is the best deal for everyone, the best deal for progressives, just to do it. to go back to the clinton era rates. you get rid of three quarters of the deficit just on tax increases at that point. >> and he says you get defense cuts. >> you can't get defense cuts any other way. and he's not the only one. there's a lot of people on the left and there's quite a few people on the right. i'm glad you're optimistic and a lot of ceos and guys in your position -- if you run a company, you don't need consumers petrified and business people petrified. this is the last thing we need if you run a company. i understand you have a horse in the game. >> but you also have the double trigger. if you go over the cliff, we've got the debt ceiling fight right afterwards. it's not like that's six months down the line. that's in if first month, six weeks of the new year. >> the other thing, depending on where you stand, the idea that we just get rid
to recession. that will have the worst impact on the deficit that anything will. we got to make sure that the economy continuebes to grow. that is the problem here. i know democrats have this blood lust to raise taxes on supposedly rich people, which are really small business people. but it is not going to do anything to grow the economy. here is what president obama needs. he has to make sure the economy grows. he will be a two-term jimmy carter if the economy goes back in recession and we can't pull ourselves out of this thing. >> eric: i heard you laugh, martin on the "two-term jimmy carter" line. >> he doesn't want to be a two-term george w. bush that took us in a steep recession. >> hey, you are the one with the bush tax cut. >> this can be worked out. everybody knows that. you can raise rates a point or two, that is not going to be end of the world. republicans understand that. let's get through with the fear we have had a couple of weeks of theater and let's get down to serious negotiations. i don't think the republicans want to fight to the death to protect tax breaks for the
to the entitlement reform portion of this deficit reduction plan. that's politically very tricky, as you know, because a lot of times dealing with entitlements will be construed as cuts to medicare and that's often not very popular. as you can imagine that deal that you just outlined, not received very well by republicans on the hill. >> i think we're going over the cliff. it's pretty clear to me they've made a political calculation. this offer doesn't remotely deal with entitlement reform in a way to save medicare and medicaid, and social security from imminent bankruptcy. the president's plan when it comes to entitlement reform is just quite frankly a joke so i don't think they're serious about finding a deal. >> so not really good language you're hearing soledad. house speaker john boehner said he found the proposal flabbergasting. he said it's not serious. but you definitely have the white house here and democrats feeling that they have some leverage. they look at polls that show americans are more prepared to blame republicans because of the impasse and also the fact that the consequence
they are the big drivers of the deficit and raising more out of the revenue, out of the tax system. whether you call iterates or reform over whatever you call it, and each those touches the third rail of the parties, we have to get together and say, basically, we have to do something right for the country. if we had a bipartisan, avoid the fiscal cliff and pay down the debt type of agreement it would be the best thing that could happen. the market would go up and we would be liking like our future was brighter than a lot of americans think it is today. >>neil: are you smoking anything at all? >>guest: drinking a little coffee. >>neil: quickly, senator, i know you have to go the congressional black caucus has come out with a statement saying, really, leave entitlements alone and focus on hiking taxes. that is the gist of the statement. what do you think of that? >>guest: it does not do it. hiring some people -- higher income people pay a disproportional share of the taxes. and they should. but if you bring the rates back to the rate before president bush it doesnot raise enough to get us to ball
deficit just by raising money from rich people. >> let's talk netflix. receiving wells notice from s.e.c., regulators warning they may bring civil action against the company and the ceo for violating public disclosure rules with a facebook post. back on july 3rd, the ceo posting netflix a monthly viewing exceeded 1 billion hours for the first time ever in june. the s.e.c. requires public companies to make the information public. hastings says he didn't believe the facebook post was material information although that day the stock was up 13%. in a letter yesterday, he also suggested the fact the post was assessable to more than 245,000 subscribers to the page makes it very public. you can choose to disclose information through other venues considered fair that may reach fewer people at the end of the day. >> ain't up to you. it's up to the government. >> rules are rules. >> and these things do need to evolve. there is little doubt about that. i remember when fd was put in. i would have conversations with executives and say you can tell me -- i'm on cnbc -- i will make it public. i'm n
and deficit proposal over the last couple years. half trillion in tax increases or trillion and a half in tax increases, $600 billion in spending cuts, more spending, and a permanent increase in the debt ceiling. on fox news sunday, boehner called that deal a joke. >> just flabbergasted. i looked, and said, you can't be serious? i just never seen anything like it. we got seven weeks between election day and the end of the year. three of those weeks have been wasted with the nonsense. >> okay. you heard them, the first time in two decades now, acknowledge they want revenues up as the balanced plan, a good first steppedded, but they have to say what they do operates and revenues. that's hard for republicans. >> runs of billions of spending cuts, tax increases begin in less than a month, and with the negotiations, two sides are about where they started. still, aids say it's early to be moving to an agreement with plenty of time for each side to extract the best deal possible before selling it to the parties and selling position to voters. with that, president obama is hosting a twitter question-
a list of all the spending cuts. you know what, the budget. we've been running a trillion dollar deficit every year under this administration. president obama has nearly doubled the debt. the spending is out of control. and it's -- we have this economy that continues to struggle -- >> the debt ceiling -- >> the debt ceiling is our opportunity to really look at these questions, but the republicans want to negotiate -- speaker boehner the day after the election, went to the podium and put tax revenue on the table. this is our moment, this is our -- tip o'neill and president reagan back in the early '80s, they came together. they negotiated to save social security as well as address the spending. and it was a $3 in spending cuts to every dollar in new revenue. and that's the type of approach we need today. >> they never used the issue of debt ceiling in those negotiations. that's relatively new. the president says, i will not play that game. he may have no choice, because the republicans have a decisive majority in the house of representatives. if they want to play that game, he's going to
has been public, what president obama wants, or at least his opening offer for deficit reduction, about $1.6 trillion in new taxes and significantly less in spending cuts. in entitlement reform, and now you have the white house really sensing that they have some leverage here, saying to house republicans, you know what? you go ahead and you put the meat on the bones when it comes to this really politically precarious part of entitlement which is often construed as cutting entitlements like medicare. here's what tim geithner said. >> we laid out a program of how we do it in what stages with $600 million of spending cuts in ten years over entitlement programs. the thing now is for them to come to us and say here's what we think makes sense. we've told them hat we think makes sense. they have to come tell us. >> so he's drawing a line there in the sand. we also heard over the weekend from house speaker john boehner that he found geithner's proposal flabbergasting. he said it wasn't serious. but what you have, zoraida, is the white house and democrats sensing that they do have the le
Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36 (some duplicates have been removed)